Re: MADELEINE MCCANN – REMARKABLE COINCIDENCES? OR PEOPLE WORKING TO A SCRIPT?

by **Tony Bennett** 20.04.19 22:33

tiki wrote:I can't get my head around that one unless they threw a lot of.money at them though I read that Martin Smith has some integrity. They do say everyone has a price and people can be bought.

Thank you very much for your honest answer @tiki.

It's utterly inexplicable, isn't it?

by **Tony Bennett** 20.04.19 22:49

worriedmum wrote:

Tony, the problem that I have with this is that in my opinion the e-fits do resemble Gerry McCann.

If one was trying to mislead, surely you would make the efit look totally different?

I assume you believe that the Smiths, especially Martin Smith, were being entirely truthful, and that you believe that they did see Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine and presumably also you believe that he was rushing to the beach in a desperate bid to hide her body, at the very moment his wife and friends were raising the alarm?

If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.

That being the case, do you have any explanation as to why the Smiths, especially Martin Smith, so soon after identifying that the man they saw was Gerry, agree to help the McCanns?

tiki was honest enough to admit it was inexplicable and ventured: "Every man has his price" i.e. bribery.

We must disagree on the efits. The two efits are different from each other in multiple respects. Either efit would provide an approximate likeness to hundreds of thousands of white Western men aged between 25 and 50

by Phoebe 20.04.19 23:37

If the Smiths were working for the MCanns, why have they never been asked by the McCanns to state publicly that they have changed their minds about the man they saw being Gerry.
It makes no sense to state that the Smiths are working to aid the McCanns while they stand by their claim that the man they saw that night, carrying the Madeleine lookalike, was Gerry McCann. In continuing to stand by this claim they are pointing the finger of blame at Gerry McCann.

by Phoebe 21.04.19 1:57

While searching through old Clarence Mitchell interviews ( looking for something raised by @ Mainline on another thread) I came across a BBC interview which occurred 15 months after Madeleine went missing. At 1 min 46 secs the interviewer asks Clarence -

"What do you make of this eyewitness lead, the Irish family that Steve King's referring to..."
Mitchell immediately interrupts with -

"Well as I just said we're not gonna go into a running commentary as you said 20,000 pages. I'm not going to do that. However as Steve correctly said, there area number of independent witnesses that place Gerry very, very clearly at the Tapas bar having a meal at the time that this alleged statement was made. And also the man concerned is said to have made his views known based on seeing Gerry on television weeks later".

If the Smiths, 15 months after May 3rd '07, were indeed "working for" the McCanns, then here was the perfect opportunity for Mitchell to have responded that they had changed their opinion of Gerry being the man they saw. Instead Mitchell looks decidedly uncomfortable and tries to downplay what he refers to as an "alleged statement" - although it is clearly real and in the published files. This response does not tally with the notion of the Smiths having come aboard team McCann.

My techno skills are dire, but here are the details re. this interview.

Clarence Mitchell On BBC Discussing Those Pesky 48 Questions Kate McCann Refused To Answer
32,769 views

LIKE

DISLIKE

SHARE

SAVE

MADELEINE MCCANN – REMARKABLE COINCIDENCES? OR PEOPLE WORKING TO A SCRIPT? - Page 2 AAuE7mCkom7rkcLIFeaTLp4QyHD4zYqrbBZghn_A0w=s88-mo-c-c0xffffffff-rj-k-no

McCann CONTROVERSY
Published on Sep 16, 2013

SUBSCRIBE 2.4K

Join us at The Madeleine McCann CONTROVERSY on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/50745...
Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/McControversy

[size=17]SHOW MORE[/size]

by plebgate 21.04.19 6:36

Mitchell had no need to state that they had changed their opinion. He had already cast doubt on their statements by saying that a number of independent witnesses had placed Mr at the Tapas having a meal and also that the statement was based on seeing Mr on tv several weeks later.

Job done.

I also agree with Tony those efits could be any Tom, Dick or Harry. Many at the time said it looked like Brunty and a reporter from Wales IIRC.

The Smiths do not need to state anything publicly imo. Why would they?

by **Tony Bennett** 21.04.19 7:10

Phoebe wrote:While searching through old Clarence Mitchell interviews ( looking for something raised by @ Mainline on another thread) I came across a BBC interview which occurred 15 months after Madeleine went missing. At 1 min 46 secs the interviewer asks Clarence -

"What do you make of this eyewitness lead, the Irish family that Steve King's referring to..."

Mitchell immediately interrupts with -

"Well as I just said we're not gonna go into a running commentary as you said 20,000 pages. I'm not going to do that...at... [SNIPPED]"

If the Smiths, 15 months after May 3rd '07, were indeed "working for" the McCanns, then here was the perfect opportunity for Mitchell to have responded that they had changed their opinion of Gerry being the man they saw...

This interview was actually over 16 months after Madeleine was reported missing. It was on 16 September 2008, shortly after the PJ files (or most of them) had been released on a DVD, and McCann researchers were feverishly translating and studying these files.

Interestingly, it was also the month (we are told) that the Smiths did the efits.

Now let's have the relevant facts.

1 Martin Smith WAS working for and co-operating with Brian Kennedy, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton

2 Operation Grange have told us that the Smiths did the efits in the same month, September 2008

3 Just 7 months later, the McCanns made HUGE use of the Smithman sighting in the C4/Mentorn Media documentary AND by using the Smithman sighting (with the age of the man changed downwards fro 40 to 34/5) on their website

4 Smith kept completely schtumm about this gross misuse of his ID of Gerry MvCann, not raising even a whisper of protest against his sighting being used to shamelessly promote the abduction narrative.

by Phoebe 21.04.19 10:16

The McCanns have certainly never made "Huge use" of the Smith sighting!
Kate doesn't even reproduce the efits in her book and glosses over it by trying to imply he was the same man as Jane had seen. In fact, the excerpt from the Mitchell interview which I posted above shows how team McCann went to great pains to downplay and undermine it. This interview was in August '08, just one month before the efits were allegedly drawn up. If the Smiths were now on board and the McCann plan was to push their sighting, then why on earth would Mitchell, just one month before the efits were made, be downplaying and undermining the sighting.
The clear inference from Mitchell's response above is A) Gerry has an alibi which will contradict what the Smiths say they saw and B) the Smiths must be mistaken because they identified Gerry from T.V. months later.
There is certainly nary a hint of any intention to use the sighting.

For very many people, the Smith sighting is one of the most damning suggestions that Madeleine was not abducted. It is a thorn in the side of their protestations of non involvement. Hence why the BBC had to lie in its program and wrongly claim that the Smiths had changed their minds.

by willowthewisp 21.04.19 18:28

Hi Phoebe BBC Crime Watch October 14,2013 DCI Andy Redwood, Mr J Totman and Daughter walking wrong way from Creche, now Creche Dad, Smith Family sighting 22.00 pm 3 May 2007, coincidence?

Jane sighting at 21.15 pm Abductor, whilst walking past Jez Wilkens,Gerry(Who don't see Jane), coincidence or contrived?

At 20.30 pm, Kate, Gerry go to Tapas.

At 21.05 pm Gerry,Madeleine in Her Bed,(Abductor behind Door)?

At 21.30 pm Mathew sees Twins Breathing in their cots,whilst stood behind a Door opening to Right Hand side, but doesn't see Madeleine in Bed directly in Front of the Door!

Forensic's become "Contaminated 15;19 Markers"?

Forensics from under tiles, " Contaminated " DNA/LCI?

Marin Grimes Crime dogs, Eddie, Keela, were wrong on what they detected from Apartment,Toy, Car, Clothing,Key fob?

Remember Robert Murat's comments, He(Robert) is a simple Guy caught up in the biggest Fuck Up of All time"!?
This implies someone, " Over Egged the Pudding "?
So if a "Script or Plan had been Worked out" who devised the plan, meaning something had already happened before He (Robert Murat) was to arrive, leaving three Days to plan?

Make Up Photograph, where was it taken, by who and what date?

Gerry, Bus Video, F**k Off, I'm Not Here to enjoy my self, what did he know or infer!